Thursday, December 29, 2016

Q. Is love or non-violence compatible with possession or exploitation in any shape or form? If possession and nonviolence cannot go together, then do you advocate the maintenance of private ownership of land or factories at an unavoidable evil which will continue so long as individuals are not ripe or educated enough to do without it? If it be such a step, would it not be better to own all the land through the State and place the State under the control of the masses?

A. Love and exclusive possession can never go together. Theoretically when there is perfect love, there must be perfect non-possession. The body is our last possession. So a man can only exercise perfect love and be completely dispossessed, if he is prepared to embrace death and renounce his body for the sake of human service.

But that is true in theory only. In actual life, we can hardly exercise perfect love, for the body as a possession will always remain with us. Man will ever remain imperfect, and it will always be his part to try to be perfect. So that perfection in love or non-possession will remain an unattainable ideal, as long as we are alive, but towards which we must ceaselessly strive.

Those who own money now are asked to behave like trustees holding their riches on behalf of the poor. You may say that trusteeship is a legal fiction. But if people meditate over it constantly and try to act up to it, then life on earth would be governed far more by love than it is at present. Absolute trusteeship is an abstraction like Euclid’s definition of a point, and is equally unattainable. But if we strive for it, we shall be able to go further in realizing a state of equality on earth than by any other method.

Q. If you say that private possession is incompatible with nonviolence, why do you put up with it?

A. That is a concession one has to make to those who earn money but who would not voluntarily use their earnings for the benefit of mankind.

Q. Why then not has State-ownership in place of private property and thus minimize violence?

A. It is better than private ownership. But that too is objectionable on the ground of violence. It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and will fail to develop nonviolence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence. Hence I prefer the doctrine of trusteeship.

Q. Let us come to a specific instance. Supposing an artist leaves certain pictures to a son who does not appreciate their value for the nation and sells them or wastes them, so that the nation stands to lose something precious through one person’s folly. If you are assured that the son would never be a trustee in the sense in which you would like him to be, do you not think the State would be justified in taking away those things from him with the minimum use of violence?

A. Yes, the State will, as a matter of fact, take away those things, and I believe it will be justified if it uses the minimum of violence. But the fear is always there that the State may use too much violence against those who differ from it. I would be very happy indeed if the people concerned behaved as trustees; but if they fail, I believe we shall have to deprive them of their possessions through the State with the minimum exercise of violence. That is why I said at the Round Table Conference that every vested interest must be subjected to scrutiny, and confiscation ordered where necessary with or without compensation as the case demanded.

What I would personally prefer would be not a centralization of power in the hands of the State, but an extension of the sense of trusteeship; as in my opinion the violence of private ownership is less injurious than the violence of the State. However, if it is unavoidable, I would support a minimum of State-ownership.

Q. Then, sir, shall we take it that the fundamental difference between you and the Socialists is that you believe that men live more by self-direction or will than by habit, and they believe that men live more by habit than by will; that being the reason why do you strive for self-correction while they try to build up a system under which men will find it impossible to exercise their desire for exploiting others?

A. While admitting that man actually lives by habit, I hold that it is better for him to live by the exercise of will. I also believe that men are capable of developing their will to an extent that will reduce exploitation to a minimum. I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has really lived for the poor.

Q. But have not those cases of trusteeship which you sometimes cite been due to your personal influence rather than to anything else? Teachers like you come infrequently. Would it not be better, therefore, to trust to some organization to effect the necessary changes in man, rather than depend upon the casual advent of men like yourself?

A. Leaving me aside, you must remember that the influence of all great teachers of mankind has outlived their lives. In the teachings of each prophet like Mohammed, Buddha or Jesus, there was a permanent portion and there was another which was suited to the needs and requirements of the times. It is only because we try to keep up the permanent with the impermanent aspects of their teachings that there is so much distortion in religious practice today. But that apart, you can see that the influence of these men has sustained us after they have passed away. Moreover, what I disapprove of is an organization based on force which a State is. Voluntary organization there must be.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Gandhi Journal Article-III ( December 2016 )

Reborn in Riyadh

The reformation: Inmates at the rehabilitation centre in Thumamah

By Syed Nazakat/Riyadh & Jeddah

He is an expert in plotting terror strikes. His first mission was to fight the US in Afghanistan and then help the cause of jihad (holy war) worldwide. But in Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Khaled Al-Bewardi was merely No. 68.

Al-Bewardi was 21 when he first heard about al Qaeda’s recruitment for Afghanistan in 2003. The jihadi videos about Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Afghanistan convinced him to fight for the “oppressed Muslim”. In November 2003, he lied to his parents that he was off to camp in the desert with friends, a popular pastime of young Saudis. In truth, he, like hundreds of al Qaeda operatives, left for Pakistan.

At loose ends and casting about for a cause, one of his friends suggested that they go see Osama bin Laden, founder of al Qaeda. But before his group could reach Afghanistan and bin Laden, he was arrested in Karachi by a joint team of the US Central Intelligence Agency and Pakistan Special Forces. He was taken to Afghanistan and from there to Guantanamo Bay, a US enclave in Cuba.

After six years there, he was asked to leave his cell and board an aircraft. He thought he would be killed in the air. As he covered his head with his hands and prayed, the Saudi aircraft winged its way to Riyadh.

He disembarked in Thumamah, a former desert resort half an hour’s drive north of the Saudi Arabian capital. Though he did not realise it, he was at another of life’s crossroads. In Thumamah, he could use an indoor swimming pool and a gym, and eat in an air-conditioned dining hall with hundreds of other al Qaeda supporters. There was kasba (meat with rice) or the Najd region speciality, hashi (baby camel). In the evenings, they would paint or play football. On weekends, their wives would join them.

After few months at Thumamah, Khaled was released, with a monthly allowance of 3,000 Saudi riyals, a car and a job. “When I look back at the dark days of my life, it seems like a miracle that I am alive today,” said Khaled, the first reformed al Qaeda man to speak to the Indian media. “My life has suddenly changed for good.”

Friday, December 9, 2016

Gandhi Journal Article-II ( December 2016 )

Swadeshi: The greatest vow of this age

By Radha Bhatt

Gandhi called swadeshi as swadeshi dharma. It was an integral part of his eleven vows. He described it as the greatest vow of the age. Therefore, to look at this revolutionary human value merely as an instrument to overcome the present state of economic crisis is not only unfair but also to lose its real strength.

In fact, economy is not so an important aspect of human existence as it is being made out today. Material achievement is nothing more than a means in the context of wholesome life of man. It can never become an end or the purpose of human existence. Therefore, any economic system which takes the creation of wealth as an end in itself could never achieve a solid foundation. We have to understand the intricacies of present worldwide economic crisis. We can easily see that the greatest weakness of the present thinking is that we have made consumerism as the primary aim of our life. A country like ours with its ancient culture had had an entirely different view of material wealth. For us the real wealth comprised of air, water, nature, land, ether etc. It meant that all those resources which were needed for the sustenance of human life actually constituted the real wealth. Unfortunately, today wealth is measured in terms of money which is printed on paper and used in exchange. It is eating into the vitals of rich heritage and prosperity of the world. Thus, the world economic crisis is unnecessarily being overemphasised.

Thursday, December 8, 2016

An interactive website set up by a Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal is proving that even in the age of fast paced technological change, the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi do not become obsolete.

www.mkgandhi.org, the largest online repository of writings on the life, work and philosophy of Gandhi, garners around 9,500 visits per day, from around 200 countries, showing that people from around the world continue to be inspired by Gandhi’s messages of peace and non-violence.

...It is a comprehensive source of information about Gandhi, with around 50,000 pages of Gandhi’s writing in 100 volumes, six different biographies and about 800 articles on Gandhi’s views on a variety of topics including environment, education, politics, management and economics. Over 150 e-books on Gandhi are available for free download on the website.

Monday, December 5, 2016

Gandhi Journal Article-I ( December 2016 )

Mahatma Gandhi’s Leadership – Moral And Spiritual Foundations

By Y.P. Anand

Mahatma Gandhi is universally accepted as an exemplary model of ethical and moral life, with a rare blending of personal and public life, the principles and practices, the immediate and the eternal. He considered life to be an integrated whole, growing from ‘truth to truth’ every day in moral and spiritual status.

He believed in a single standard of conduct founded on dharma of truth and nonviolence. He successfully led nonviolent struggles against racial discrimination, colonial rule, economic and social exploitation and moral degradation. So long as these manifestations of violence remain, Gandhi will remain relevant. Gandhi was “a good man in a world where few resist the corroding influence of power, wealth and vanity”.1Among the vital messages of Gandhi’s leadership are: even one person can make a difference; strength comes not from physical capacity but from an indomitable will; given a just cause, nonviolence and capacity for self-suffering, and fearlessness, victory is certain; leadership by example is the one most effective. He asserted: “We only wish to serve our fellowmen wherever we may be….” (CWMG 54:233)